You purchased a text to speech application, and then had to legally gain access to said book. The book is property which has restricted access that you have to either purchase or pay for the service of gaining temporary access to the book. The purpose of your use of the text to speech is for the private consumption of the book's material.
Using a LLM to read a book that you didn't purchase access to, and turning it into the basis for the training of your program is still going to be theft of the material. If you're going to purchase it for training material, you can probably do that with the explicit recognition that the work and text of the book can't be re-distributed through your algorithm. You might be able to get away with specific citations for quotes, but the work itself can't be redistributed as profit for the book would have been diminished by your algorithm's actions. If the LLM's work that comes from the book is transformative, then you're fine.
What would not be fine is for books to be protected by copyright and paywall, not purchased, and still be data mined for their material without compensation to the owner. This is especially true with something as vast as a for-profit business as an AI algorithm.
It isn't theft. Theft, by definition ,requires that the criminal deprive someone of something. You can't steal a digital product.
For example, if you steal my car, I can't drive my car. That is theft. Downloading episodes of Magnum PI isn't theft.
It isn't copyright infringement, because that (by definition) covers the uncompensated reproduction and sale of an intellectual property. Training a LLM with an e-book doesn't copy or sell the book.
I think that you need to go and read some definitions, because you are groping in the dark for reasons to object and using words you don't actually understand.
If you want to advocate for new laws that govern how people can create and run computer programs on hardware they own, then advocate for that. You will certainly have a lot of company.
That's never been true. If you want to make a philosophical argument that digital property shouldn't be considered property, fine. But the law is clear that digital assets can be stolen.
Look, guy, it is a matter of definition. Different words mean different things.
If the thief took every copy and the lawful owner could not use the digital product, then that would be theft. If the bad guy just made unauthorized copies or used the digital data (or whatever) without a license, then it isn't theft.
The reason that the distinction matters is because harm must be assessed when rendering legal judgement by the courts. If I download a copy of Magnum PI, I have not depraved anyone of the use or enjoyment of the episode. If I stole an episode with ninjas then no network in the world could use it until it was recovered, probably by men with guns.
These are not the same. The damages are not the same.
Gizortnik, this is well understood law. It isn't even debated in legal circles. It was debated to exhaustion at around the time of printed sheet music, more than 200 years ago.
You really are showing your profound ignorance in this specific issue.
You're trying to cover-up that you just had to make a correction to what your saying, while being dismissive of shit that is absolutely true.
You just admitted that, yes, digital assets can be stolen. Originally you said it wasn't possible. It is, and you admit it. Copying without a license isn't theft, and I know the difference. You conflated them.
If I download a copy of Magnum PI, I have not depraved anyone of the use or enjoyment of the episode. If I stole an episode with ninjas then no network in the world could use it until it was recovered, probably by men with guns.
This is how you are conflating them. How did you get that download? You can steal files from a system. If you record it on your phone and download it, or if someone screen records it from their TV and sends you a copy, neither of those are theft.
Neither of those has anything to do with "deprivation". That's not an element of theft. Just because you stole a car from someone's drive way while they were asleep, and returned it before they woke up, it doesn't mean that it doesn't count as theft. The illegal and consensual use of the thing is normally enough for theft.
You purchased a text to speech application, and then had to legally gain access to said book. The book is property which has restricted access that you have to either purchase or pay for the service of gaining temporary access to the book. The purpose of your use of the text to speech is for the private consumption of the book's material.
Using a LLM to read a book that you didn't purchase access to, and turning it into the basis for the training of your program is still going to be theft of the material. If you're going to purchase it for training material, you can probably do that with the explicit recognition that the work and text of the book can't be re-distributed through your algorithm. You might be able to get away with specific citations for quotes, but the work itself can't be redistributed as profit for the book would have been diminished by your algorithm's actions. If the LLM's work that comes from the book is transformative, then you're fine.
What would not be fine is for books to be protected by copyright and paywall, not purchased, and still be data mined for their material without compensation to the owner. This is especially true with something as vast as a for-profit business as an AI algorithm.
Oh, Gizortnik. Here we go.
It isn't theft. Theft, by definition ,requires that the criminal deprive someone of something. You can't steal a digital product.
For example, if you steal my car, I can't drive my car. That is theft. Downloading episodes of Magnum PI isn't theft.
It isn't copyright infringement, because that (by definition) covers the uncompensated reproduction and sale of an intellectual property. Training a LLM with an e-book doesn't copy or sell the book.
I think that you need to go and read some definitions, because you are groping in the dark for reasons to object and using words you don't actually understand.
If you want to advocate for new laws that govern how people can create and run computer programs on hardware they own, then advocate for that. You will certainly have a lot of company.
That's never been true. If you want to make a philosophical argument that digital property shouldn't be considered property, fine. But the law is clear that digital assets can be stolen.
Look, guy, it is a matter of definition. Different words mean different things.
If the thief took every copy and the lawful owner could not use the digital product, then that would be theft. If the bad guy just made unauthorized copies or used the digital data (or whatever) without a license, then it isn't theft.
The reason that the distinction matters is because harm must be assessed when rendering legal judgement by the courts. If I download a copy of Magnum PI, I have not depraved anyone of the use or enjoyment of the episode. If I stole an episode with ninjas then no network in the world could use it until it was recovered, probably by men with guns.
These are not the same. The damages are not the same.
Gizortnik, this is well understood law. It isn't even debated in legal circles. It was debated to exhaustion at around the time of printed sheet music, more than 200 years ago.
You really are showing your profound ignorance in this specific issue.
You're trying to cover-up that you just had to make a correction to what your saying, while being dismissive of shit that is absolutely true.
You just admitted that, yes, digital assets can be stolen. Originally you said it wasn't possible. It is, and you admit it. Copying without a license isn't theft, and I know the difference. You conflated them.
This is how you are conflating them. How did you get that download? You can steal files from a system. If you record it on your phone and download it, or if someone screen records it from their TV and sends you a copy, neither of those are theft.
Neither of those has anything to do with "deprivation". That's not an element of theft. Just because you stole a car from someone's drive way while they were asleep, and returned it before they woke up, it doesn't mean that it doesn't count as theft. The illegal and consensual use of the thing is normally enough for theft.